lexus holds its value better than any other luxury brand. ♪ intellichoice proclaims that lexus has the best overall value of any brand. ♪ and j.d. power and associates ranks lexus the highest in customer satisfaction. no wonder more people have chosen lexus over any other luxury brand 11 years in a row. see your lexus dealer. in the dc area, it's hard to miss a capital one bank. alright, let's get ready to work alex. rosslyn! ♪ arlington! ♪ falls church! nice save! [ trainer ] tenley! k street! [ horn sounds ]

herndon! mclean! cleveland park! capitol hill! [ groans ] sorry penguin. georgetown! [ metal dings ] ♪ [ male announcer ] capital one bank. the most branches and atms in the dc area. ovie. we still got maryland. what's in your wallet? i'd trade a lot less for a little more. or a little less for a lot more. either way, when it comes to having more, i want a lot more of more and a little less of less. ♪ and that's exactly what you'll get at embassy suites. more free breakfast, more for my money, more deliciousness, more hearty guffaws... [ guffaws ] because more than enough more is never enough more. more coffee? what do you think? [ female announcer ] free breakfast. more room. complimentary drinks. embassy suites hotels.

welcome to this week in defense news. when leon panetta reports for duty as the nation's 23rd -- it goes without saying he's going to have a big job ahead. what should his priorities be when on the new job and what does america's combat leader petraeus bring when he hands over command of the afganistan war. top jobs by president obama last week include allen who replaces petraeus and crocker who precedes -- as ambassador so afganistan. here's david bartow, lauren

thompson of the lexington institute and tom donnellly of the american enterprise institute. welcome to the show. >> there are some people who recard the team as a bit of a dream team, reducing overlap. petraeus knows a lot about intelligence. panetta knows a lot about the wars. >> i think the question of the timing is really critical here. essentially they take office this summer. you've got about 18 months left in fact term of obama's administration. you need a team that comes in with the idea they're going to get started right away. that probably means not a lot of turnover of the other personnel. they don't have time to transfer people out. they have three budgets to defend. 2012 and 2013 and the most

important one is -- that panetta will put together. >> so there your view, it's a solid team. >> i think it is and they can use the people that are there to hit the ground running. >> i would agree with david, that if continuity is what they value, above all else, there's no learning curve. we're not going to see a huge turnover in these organizations because that would be quite disruptive and it's not necessary. however, i do worry about the longer team beyond continue newty. we're going to be talking about changes in relation to the budget discussion. is this the right team for that? i'm in the so sure about that. >> i'm wondering how this is going to be. that's about 4% of security spending during that period. how much heavy lifting do you need to do if it's a 4% cut over 12 years. >> well, if you know the answer

-- regardless of how you get this. the big news is the dog that didn't bark. petraeus is not going to get the chairman joint chief of staff job. i would like to see a successful war commander precede as a -- lead the department through the kinds of changes we've been alluding to. that's going to be both an intellectual task but more important a leadership and moral challenge. petraeus is a controversial figure, but nobody questions his ability to adapt to changing circumstances. >> but that's not what the administration is concerned about for the next 18 months. it's about get regular -- re- elected. i'm surprised he's not going to cia. this is a person what was rumored to be considering a presidential run. this is a hard choice to understand against the backdrop

of obama's first priority of being re-elected. >> petraeus actually liked the job. he was initially expected to go to ucomm and end his career there. i'm curious why you think he didn't make chairman. >> a couple of things, most of all to do with the sort of phobia that this white house has about petraeus as a potential politician. i think that's ludicrous but all the -- but the good thing about the cia, they bring him close and puts him in a closet. so if they were still worried about what petraeus would be as an independent political act or as a citizen, they found a pretty good cubbyhole to stash

him in. >> they've put general petraeus, the commander of afganistan in charge of the daily intelligence. >> i think you have to look at it from the interaction of the whole team. ultimately there's two big sets of issues here. one is the issues we're going to face in afganistan and not only iraq, but pakistan obviously. so crocker comes to play as well. petraeus' relationship with crocker is supreme. it's how things ought to be done. so from an afganistan and pakistan view, it's immeasurable. you need somebody who's going to figure out that the budget lines up as well. that's not david petraeus. that's somebody else. >> before we go to the budget question. i'm not totally sold on the idea that panetta is going over to the -- to be a place holder. everything he has done has been

to roger up and do a good job, whether he was on the budget committee or at cia in terms of terms of reforming. do you think that he's going to bring those skills to bear to continue and build on the reforms that gaits has started. >> he knows thousand make the trains run on time. he's hardworking. he's intelligent and a fast learner. he doesn't have to learn here. he has an opportunity to build on those reforms. he's never been asked to be a long range thinker. is somebody else going to be leading that effort and he's going to be carrying it out? i think it could go one or two ways. >> well, it could be like bill cohen, second to clinton. either way, this is not a boat rocker. goal no. 1 is don't create problems for the white house while he's

trying to get re-elected. >> i think lauren is right. a lot of parameters have been set. the budget parameters are basically fixed. this could be a ceiling rather than a floor. also, we should remember that gates has fired a lot of generals and gotten away with it and forced people in uniform to salute and drive on. whether panetta will have to do that or will have the horse power to do that is also an open question. >> there's two big areas where panetta brings something right away. it's a long time if you want to get something done. you can get a lot done in 18 months. congress is distracted with other issues right now anyway. second, he understands how the system works. he doesn't understand the pentagon. he's going to need help

understanding the day-to-day. he understands how the white house works and how the hill works. he understands how the interagency works. i think he can use that 18 months to get a lot done below the radar screen, still keeping in mind we don't want to be a negative headline on the page

welcome back to "this week in defense." i want to get all you your take but started with tom. what are the top three priorities that pan the has to have in who was?

>> not to lose any war he's currently fighting. secondly, to -- >> sage advice, don. >> something that's worth remembering. also, protect the top line, that will be under pressure from both the left and the right. and finally, pay attention to civil military relations. the military has been fighting a long, hard war and is about to be rewarded with budget cuts. that's going to make people grumpy, and he's got to keep on top of that, and ensure that the all-volunteer force which has been multi-generational success, can be reformed for the future. >> i'll tell what you really makes people grumpy, and that's being given less money, even more things to do. and i think that i disagree with tom that his number-one priority is ensuring that the resources that are available to him and to his department are aligned with what that military is being asked to do. and i think one of knocks on

gates is he has not been strong enough in pushing back on things that they're not doing. he tried on libya and was rolled some there are going to be other cases like that where leon panetta will say you know what 90 have less money, the same number of people or fewer people, you can't simply pile more stuff into that sack. >> you know, the comment earlier that $400 billion over 12 years is not a large percentage cut is valid. but i think it's useful to remember this is just one of another series. we're not only going to have a vote in the next month or two on the debt ceiling, the republicans have decided they don't want to raise it that much so we'll have another vote next christmas, next summer -- you'll end up with a number of deals being cult. so you're right, it's a ceiling we have to come. i think three of his biggest priorities, number one is inside that ceiling he has huge unfunded priorities inside, especially the army. they don't have a program for ground combat vehicles. they don't have a program for jail tv. they have hundreds of billions of dollars of unfunded program requirements in the army.

and if you're going to keep the army happy you have to did that. >> they're not going to have thunderstorms things. they 4 their window of opportunity, whether the budgeted was going up, up, up and they squandered it. they're not going to going to have a ground vehicle and not be affordable. >> does he have to tell them that, and what is the framework in which the message is conveyed? the second thing he has to be very careful about is, gates has laid out an efficiency initiative that basically isn't represent cancel. what he is did to achieve -- can't be repeated. he's going to have have to come up with another sets of mechanisms to squeeze this money out in a way that doesn't hurt. >> i know there's some skepticism at this table about how much reform there will be able to do. but their problems are such on so many fronts that only reform is going to get you through them. a pay personnel and benefits it's only reform that will do it. on acquisition, the whole

system is geared to actually produce things that are -- >> expensive. the system has to be reformed, but you don't do re terms on the eve of a national election. we've got a political system in which the two parties are very evenly matched in terms of popularity. and if you try to do something like a just military benefit or cuts in the middle of a war going into the election, you'll have your head handed to you. >> i'm not sure -- doesn't secretary of defense have to be the champion for reform? maybe again he is following the instructions and the advice and implementing a reform that is associated with a shift in grand strategy, which -- shouldn't be dictated by the secretary of defense. >> this is 10 pounds in a five- pound sack. chris is correct, you can't reform your way out of the conundrum before the demand for military power and supply of military power, except by either increasing supply or -- the demand and this has been a -- a problem that's been 20 years in the making, and things

that can't go on don't. and we're at that point where you're either going to have to constrain the appetite from military power or produce more military power. >> doesn't even a choice anymore. we know we're going to have to attenuate. we just got a signal from standard & poors that the united states may lose its favorable credit rating in the future, and we could see signals everywhere that the united states cannot keep spending money or borrowing money at the rate we're doing. so the notion that we'll raise defense spending nords to accommodate this 10-pound bag is uncharacterize. it's just not a starter. >> that's not -- concerned and at the end of the day, the reason they changed or put that negative note out is that everybody keeps saying alarmist things about the department oh, my god, the debt! it's no surprise analysts go, other, my god, the debt! this is a problem! it was like screaming fire in a theater often enough and people get the message it might be time toe leave the theater. >> bill gates and opinion eta

will be very different. you pushed him on it three times and he said defense is not part of the solution to the deficit. >> right. >> i don't believe you'll hear those words come out of leon panetta. >> you know what happened in that meeting? we said what is the solution to the deficit? he said one word, entitlements. if you look at how much money we're borrowing and you look at the way in which the federal budget is allocated, you would need to cut social security and medicare by 50% to balance this budget. that's not going to happen. >> you have to eliminate the pentagon twice -- >> true! >> about the size of the deficit. not about where the money is within the. look, i would say yes we have to attenuated the appetite, but don't tell me that a month after you go to war and libya. everybody says -- we have to stop borrowing and stop fighting wa coming up next, more with our round table!

we're back with david better roe toe for the center for international studies, chris probably of the kato institute, warren thompson of the lexington institute, and tom donnally of the american enterprise instituted. there's a question whether or not this movement between -- c.i.a. and dod, petraeus to c.i.a. is blurring the lines between the two services. do you think that's a legitimate fear. >> into that was the lead in the new york sometimes story and they got it right. they have the intelligence chief going to the pentagon, and we have i senior general going to the c.i.a. not only that, we center another retired general at the director of national intelligence, and the previous secretary of defense was also ahead of the c.i.a. they thoroughly confused the boundary between a civilian intelligence community and a military war fighting community. >> but chris, let's go to afghanistan and what this means for afghanistan.

isn't this basically because we're trying to do this economical war of footprint thing, mean there's a blurring of the lines, c.i.a. drone inspiring missiles on people and the ground c.i.a. game like the oss foundation that it had had in the 1940s is the same thing? >> but, there's still an analysis role for the agency. and i worry a lot on the question of afghanistan, the most critical skeptical things being said about afghanistan were coming out the agency. and i predict that if those scenarios sudden suddenly turn rosie, we're told things are going swimmingly, even if that's true, people will suspect it's because general petraeus was leaning on the analysts to change their assessment. and i hope that's not the case. >> given panetta had a darker assessment of the process than petraeus did. what do you think will the operational impact of changes? john allen going there and ryan crocker as well? >> i agree crocker is a good pick and good fit and has a good relationship with these

people. but the end of the day this mission is a bear and we do not have a good solution for winning the war. tom said win the war. get, if we're going to win the where we need like 30 years, and we're not prepared to do that. which we shouldn't be prepared to do that. >> a pullout will happen on time in a couple months? >> at least one platoon. >> how background a pullout? significant? what does that mean. >> petraeus was fighting to keep larger force at possible. so there were some talk about just a single combat brigade bringing out and a certain amount of support structure coming out and maybe the marine general allen, marines used to fighting with late kid. taking a more jaundiced eye towards the big support structure. >> once again,th re-election campaign dictates you do a real pullout. >> and any big operational impact or is this doable and

send the right message to the afghan side? >> well, unknowable. i think also persevering to lose a war which we're being -- doing in afghanistan, probably makes not losing -- pardon me, in libya, makes not lose engine afghanistan a higher premium for a president who needs to be reelected. >> let me go to an important question, the choice of chairman. now that panetta is named will he influence the chairman. think this will be president obama's choice. >> obviously. >> this team is familiar to him, if not people he is entirely comfortable with, which argues i think for the general cartwright getting a stronger look than he would otherwise. president obama's favorite general. it would be a disastrous choice but you still center to handicap. >> why so. >> because he's perceived as obama's favorite general. >> other alternatives, the u

com commander, vice chairman. >> he is the safe choice, panetta choice, if you will. he is interesting because he has the combat credibility. >> not only that but a lot of sea service people in jobs, he would also bring a diversity to the group. >> one senior four-star told me that looking one thing that is great about jim is he brings big thinking in items of roles for the future. >> big think has begun a real and real god job in the past no. >> you're so cynical! let me ask but the other big news of the week that's been drowned out, india decision decision do disqualify the f- 16, pickingth ruero fighter to move ahead. what does this mean when the united states sort of put forward this nuclear deal on everything else to get into the indian defense marketed? is. >> three things. i believe india didn't get something they wanted and my

guess is it's -- they didn't get access to the technology. we weren't willing to give them that. that's a are problem we'll faces over and over again. >> because it our technology is'd. >> and we don't like people to have it. so it's hard to have allies who can interoperate with you if you won't give access to technology. the second is the president put effort at take hem went to india, made the case he was rebuffed and it's a blow in that regard. the third is he doesn't recognize from our perspective the value of india. we're talking about impact with pakistan with afghanistan. >> maybe it's a negotiating tactic [everyone talking at once] >> we've given a huge amount of business to american industry as well. we ought to spread that wealth around? >> i think it tells but the union air force, they understand what they're supposed to be doing. i think it may get reversed at a higher peg. >> guys? thank you very much. coming up in my notebook, some priorities for leon panetta after he becomes the next

[ male announcer ] washington, d.c. a landmark of liberty and opportunity. at bank of america, we live and work here, with thousands of employees and hundreds of branches and atms. every day, we're working to help set opportunity in motion... from supporting the arts and howard university to helping revitalize anacostia and downtown d.c. because when you're giving, lending, and investing

in more communities across the country, more opportunities happen. ♪ now that president obama has named veteran washington insider leon panetta to replace bob gates as defense secretary, the question sum are asking is whether he will reform the pentagon for serve as a care fakeer for the remainser of the administration's first term. panetta history suggests he's not going to the pentagon to twiddle his thumbs. he's 72 if has a representation of tackling tough jobs so it's unlikely to pull punches. that's what makes him ideal for in job at this challenging time. as a former congressman and white house chief of staff he knows politics. as a former budget committee chairman and director he knows money. as c.i.a. chief, he knows america's wars. so as he prepares to take over

--er washington's toughest job aside from president, here are four priorities. first continue cut, excess overhead. if you don't know how much you're really spending, you really can't make smart decisions. seconds, reform pay and benefits that left unchecked will gobble increasing chunks of a flat or shrinking defense budget. third, revamp the personnel structure to make better use of uniformed civilian and contractor personnel to cut inefficiencies. fourth, reform the requirements and acquisition process to get more critically needed modernization for each dollar spent. he has unique skills and experiences and must use all of them to reform a pentagon that needs reform. thank you for joining us for "this week in defense." you can watch this program online or e-mail me at this address. i'll be back next week at the same time. until then, have a great week! xóp